Britain outlaws a homeowner’s self-defense against intruders

One of the most basic principles of Anglo-Saxon common law is a homeowner’s right to defend himself against intruders. Oh, wait! That’s not quite true anymore. In England, which practically gave its name to the notion that “a man’s home is his castle,” homeowner self-defense is against the law (emphasis mine):

Myleene Klass, the broadcaster and model, brandished a knife at youths who broke into her garden – but has been warned by police that she may have acted illegally.

Miss Klass, a model for Marks & Spencer and a former singer with the pop group Hear’Say, was in her kitchen in the early hours of Friday when she saw two teenagers behaving suspiciously in her garden.

The youths approached the kitchen window, before attempting to break into her garden shed, prompting Miss Klass to wave a kitchen knife to scare them away.

Miss Klass, 31, who was alone in her house in Potters Bar, Herts, with her two-year-old daughter, Ava, called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an “offensive weapon” – even in her own home – was illegal.

Mind you, the above rule is separate from the fact that the UK’s strict anti-gun laws have cut off completely one way in which homeowners can defend themselves against intruders. The inevitable, is that burglars feel free to break and enter occupied houses, since they needn’t worry about staring down the wrong end of a gun barrel. (Crime, too, has sky-rocketed.) What’s different about the rule announced in the above article, is that it isn’t just about removing the homeowner’s most effective instrument of defense; instead, it’s about destroying entirely even the thought of self-defense.

I think Miss Klass is to be highly commended for doing whatever she could to defend herself and her daughter against these intruders. After all, if she ever cracks open a paper in England, or turns on the news, she knows that Yob violence is out of control. Britain has successfully turned itself into Anthony Burgess’ Clockwork Orange-vision of a nation equally divided between compliant victims, on the one hand, and brutal psychopaths, on the other.

Thank goodness that, at least in Oklahoma, people are still allowed to defend themselves against home intruders. Otherwise, one very brave and frightened woman, instead of having successfully and with great physical and moral courage defended herself, could be as dead as the average British homeowner:

The police are fantastic at arriving at the scene of a crime, and cleaning it up, investigating, and often nailing the predator(s).

Afterwards.

Preventing YOU from being the victim who gets cleaned up – or whose remains get cleaned up – they’re almost always useless – except when, purely by luck, they happen across the scene of the crime while it happens to be occurring. I don’t intend to ever trust in, or hope for, such luck.

For the life of me, I can’t understand how the British have gotten to this point, and why your average Briton isn’t up in arms about this. Of *course* you have to be able to defend yourself against the predators! Who would want to live their life as a sheep, living by the mantra, “Please don’t hurt me, please, please?”

socratease

I don’t think this is anything new. Britain has had their “offensive weapons act” for a long time now, I recall clipping an articles years ago about a loading dock worker who was sent to prison because he had a utility knife in his car when he was stopped on his way to work by a policeman. “Self defense” in Britain isn’t exactly illegal, but you can be charged if you use more force than your attacker. For instance, an old man who uses his walking stick to fend off a pair of teenagers trying to rob him could be charged with assault because his stick wasn’t “comparable force” to the fists and feet of the youths attacking him. Many passive defenses are also banned, putting barbed wire on the wall around your house is illegal because would-be robbers could get injured, for instance.

Britain makes an interesting counter-argument against gun control opponents. Every increasingly restrictive gun control law passed in Britain has been followed by an increase in their violent crime rate. This is also true in American regions with similar laws, but here the contradiction is explained away by claiming that the “crime guns” come from adjacent jurisdictions with lax laws. (Leading to, of course, calls for yet more gun control laws, especially at the federal level.) Britain, being an island, clearly puts the lie to that theory.

This is what the Left wants for us here in the US. It doesn’t matter if Ms. Klass has a butcher knife or a butter knife, the result would have been the same as far as the law there is concerned. The fact that she could have been attacked, raped, beaten to death, doesn’t matter — Oh my, she had a kitchen knife! Heaven forbid.
While here in the USA if someone tries to attack me, a legal gun owner with carry permit, they will quickly be stopped.
Again, it makes a difference where in the US you live. If you live in SF with you, Bookworm, it’s one outcome. If you live where I do, … BOOM!

Right Truth:
I never thought I would defend San Francisco, but…
I live in San Jose, often thought of the working mans city in the Bay Area, and I think you have a strange view about SF. It is true that many people in SF do not like guns, or the idea of armed self defense, but guns are still legal there, as some people will shoot intruders. Of course that outcome is more likely in San Jose, especially in my house, but still a fact nevertheless.

San Francisco has tried to become a gun free city. It simply hasn’t succeeded. I’m sure some in the government there will try again, and while there are San Franciscans who are conservative and pro-gun, it’s the anti-gun progressives who keep voting in the politicians.

As for me, I use to contribute money to all sorts of anti-gun causes. When I became conservative in my politics, I still had a really hard time comprehending that guns could be anything but instruments of death, usually in the hands of gangs. It was Hurricane Katrina that changed my mind. I finally figured out then that (a) cops, under the best circumstances, usually show up after the fact and (b) sometimes the cops don’t or can’t show up at all. Crooks need to know that they’re still in trouble even if the cops aren’t around.

Anyway, I do appreciate your comment. Nothing is completely black and white, and it’s hard to envision rules, policies or even morality that work in all places, at all times.

JKB

Well this is just the Progressive ideals inflicted on a national scale. The fools imposed such thinking on American urban populations in the Seventies which led to their becoming cesspools of crime. Hollywood even took advantage of this but also exposed it with such movies as the Deathwish franchise, Warriors, etc. Of course, America is large and people were able to escape from the cities forming defensive settlements in the suburbs.
California is well on its way to disarm the population. Rational from the viewpoint that the ruling class are very worried that the population will hold them responsible for the man-made disaster the state now is. On Jan 1, laws went into effect that effectively stops the selling of ammunition to CA residents by cost effective sources which result in ammo only being available to wealthier citizens. Many vendors have decided to also stop selling to government agencies and police in the state as well given the risks imposed by the law.

jj

It’s a nuance, it seems – though it shouldn’t be: it should be obvious. You put your finger on it in the above, Bookworm, when you said you had a hard time comprehending that guns could be: “anything but instruments of death.” Well… of course. What the hell else is a gun intended to be? No one has ever argued that a firearm is not a potentially dangerous apparatus – that’s pretty much the point.

So the thrust of the gun banners is really that no one should be allowed to have a potentially dangerous weapon. (Or maybe the gun banners are like Islam and sex: they can’t trust themselves so they don’t want to trust anybody.) The problem with that is that the world is and has always been exceedingly well stocked with potentially dangerous weapons, and human beings – some of ’em – have the nature to use them. Cavemen who got mad at their neighbors didn’t have recourse to Smith & Wesson products, or even well-stocked kitchen drawers, but somehow or other still managed to find ways to do each other in. They had to get closer to one another than a gun requires – at least within spear range – but they got it done.

So banning guns on the basis of the argument that they kill people looks increasingly ridiculous. In the long history of the human race, so do bare hands, rocks, branches, spears, bows and arrows, just plain arrows, swords, knives, noxious substances, pollows, ponds, streams, rivers and oceans, etc., etc. It is, apparently, a very dangerous world – about which San Francisco can do nothing.

I’m in a heavily armed state. A lot of our crime is perpetrated by people while flying on some controlled substance and not quite in their right minds. Empty houses get burglarized, but generally not occupied ones because everybody knows that the inhabitants are likely to be as well – or better – armed as the burglars. It makes burglars careful. When they’re too stoned to be careful they often end up dead, and self and/or property defense are pretty automatic: when someone breaks into your house he’s on his own, you have every right to blow his face off, and generally what the cops have to say about it is along the lines of: “nice shot.”

My wife sells real estate, a lot of her customers are from out of state and nothing more than e-mail contacts. She generally has a shiny little plated .38 in a shoulder holster beneath her right arm (she’s left-handed) when she goes out to meet some total stranger. The only actual permit you need here is to carry – owning is done simply by having a driver’s license. When she was filling out the application and being finger-printed by the sheriff’s department, she got to talking about why she wanted the carry permit. The sheriff said: “damn right,” and she had the permit within six days. She has thus far avoided killing anyone.

I’ve head guns and permits to carry them my whole life, she’s had them around forever, and has been able to carry one on her person for a couple of years. We have both somehow managed to avoid killing – or even wounding – anyone. Apparently guns do in fact not kill – none of ours (3 38s, 2 9s, a .357, a 40, 2 shotguns, a couple of 22 target rifles, and a very unfriendly so-called “assault weapon”) have put so much as a scratch on anyone.

The idea of disarming the populace, as England has done – is an old one, and England isn’t the only place to have had this thought. The result has generally been, as seems to be the result in England as well, that crime statistics spike. Cliches only become cliches because they are in facts truths, and it seems that “when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” is turning out to be as solid as any other. Outlawing outlaws is probably a better idea.

rockdalian

Among her many talents, Myleene Klass is an accomplished piano player. This video is of her playing Cinema Paradiso, from her 2007 album, Myleene’s Music For Romance.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTnRWjxYIAI
The idea of self defense in Britain has been an issue for some time.
From the Mises Review, fall 2002:
“You can imagine the legal position if someone goes so far as to use a real gun to defend himself. As British law now stands, you cannot even use a gun in your own home to defend yourself against burglars. In a 1999 incident, Tony Martin surprised a professional burglar and his accomplice while they robbed his home. He fired, killing one of them.
Did the government commend Martin for his bravery in confronting the burglars? Quite the contrary, they tried and convicted him for murder. “Thus an English farmer, living alone, has been sentenced to life in prison for killing one professional burglar and ten years for wounding another when the two broke into his home at night” (p. 216). Fortunately, our story has a “happy” ending: the court of appeals reduced his sentence to five years, on grounds of “diminished capacity.”http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=215

Mike Devx

rockdalian #10:
> Did the [British] government commend Martin for his bravery in confronting the burglars? Quite the contrary, they tried and convicted him for murder. […] the court of appeals reduced his sentence to five years, on grounds of “diminished capacity.”

Rockdalian, that story fills me with anger and outrage. (Whereas my contemplation of Book’s post on government forcing ingredient listings causes me no emotional response at all.) The intensity of my complete loathing tells me that when the government moves to strip me of my natural God-given right to self-defense, the government will have lost all legitimacy in my eyes.

Forgotten in all this is violent crime is much worse than murder in its effects on the individual and society (imo, an order of magnitude worse). I believe violent crime is enslavement, and has its roots in slavery, while murder is a but single, terrible act with little societal impact beyond the tragedy, the loss of the individual and their memory.

Violent crime leaves its victims and friends permanently marked and less free in their own thoughts, dreams and actions. Fear reduces freedom, period. It affects how the victims face their day for the rest of their lives. In reduces civil society along an axis towards anarchy and Hobbs. It’s impact lingers for decades if not a lifetime. Between violent crime and murder, murder has markedly less social costs.

This is the true impact of all these laws and conventions that result in a loss of the ability to defend yourself, your family and your possessions, by limiting individual’s access to weapons that equalize the weak and the strong. They increase the amount and degree of violent crime and enslave the survivors. (isn’t it curious how even when the criminal knows that the sheep will give up all without a fight they can’t resist giving a good beating more often than not. Not new, consider the pictographs from Egypt, slave master and slave, the human condition).

Be good to know if and how the amount and level (physical damage) of violent crime differs between countries like the U.S. and Britain. It may be our relative freedom, happiness and even prosperity is due to our willingness to respect the rights of the individual more so than they, and bear the burden of more deaths (accident and murder) in return for a more civil society.

This is why the British need TFT more than others. By being capable of killing without the need for external tools, it is far harder for them to 1. be harmed by criminals and 2. be harmed by the legal system.

The British government has intentionally let in violent Islamic fanatics to transform and control the British public. The Brits lost their chance to reverse this course a long time ago, back when they kicked out Churchill after WWII. What did they think that would do, voting in Labor and replacing Churchill as PM? They thought it would give Britain prosperity and security and unity, the same as they had during the war. As if.

Criminals will often avoid targeting people they think will fight back. Crime is about profit, not taking risks. But in Britain, you get motivation for the criminals. When they believe they have nothing to lose or are protected by the law, they’re not going to moderate or take less risks.

A criminal that thinks they are in attack range of you and that you haven’t even noticed, is now setting you up for a crime. If you make it plain that you aware of him, are yourself setting up to attack him, then often he’ll pick another target.

British law is designed not to allow this to happen. They want crime to happen, so that the people will clamor for more and more government intervention. Even as that intervention does nothing to help the people. It’s an interesting social experiment, but what else did you expect from the Left. They are nothing but enemies of humanity to begin with. They exist to be hated.

When the Left is allowed guns, what you get is the Iranian Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, WACO, Cuban Revolution, aka death and misery for millions untold.

Don’t ever allow Leftists to get a hold of guns or any other weapons like explosives. They’re not adults. They don’t have what it takes to handle that power.

Not to mention they are piss scared of physical violence and death to begin with.

A Democrat that is against guns isn’t using their head, but their fears as counsel. Their insecurity is telling them to ban guns because they can’t handle guns, they don’t want to face a gun, and they can’t handle the thought of wielding violence against another or having it wielded against themselves.

Some are hunters, of course, and they are for banning guns. They seem to have their own rationalizations on this level, but those are the minority. The great majority simply have one reason: fear.

Danny Lemieux

Ari Tai – that’s a very good question you pose at the end.
Violent crime tends to be much more localized in U.S. than in Europe. What is frightening in Europe is that you really can’t escape it. For the individual victim, of course, it doesn’t make much difference.
I knew a woman, mother of two, who got raped in a small town and never got satisfaction from the law. She ended up committing suicide one year later on the anniversary of the event.
I suspect that worse than being the victim of violent crime is the knowledge that you cannot get justice. I heard that vigilantism in Belgium is sky high. When there is no governing law, people create their law. Can’t say I disagree with them. In Britain, “justice” has become a joke. Frankly, I don’t know what I would do if I was the victim of a violent crime in Britain but I suspect that it would be pretty ugly.

Danny Lemieux

Incidentally, the last time I looked (about a year ago), violent crime is much higher in Canada, Britain and much of Europe than in the U.S. Murder rates are significantly higher in the U.S., though. Property crimes are also much higher in Europe.

When a person has no confidence in the law and will be punished regardless of what they do, they will have no reason to hold their limits in check. That means whatever response they have to a perception that they are in danger will be more and more disproportionate because they can no longer count on proportion to save them.

British politicians like Blair specifically wanted to protect Muslims from British law, so he wouldn’t enforce the law against them while using every part of the law to suppress native Brits.

There’s more murders because the gangs have a limited amount of territory to fight over. Limited resources means more competition.

In Britain, people don’t need to kill the cows because they got them locked up for the slaughter whenever they want.

In the US, there are safe zones and less safe zones. The less safe zones are dominated by black jungle mentality, which is similar to the Islamic inferiority complex. This is such that they won’t tolerate ‘insults’ because losing face is the same as dying in such a jungle environment. This includes various gang territories, inner cities, and what not. Most of them are either funded by Democrat welfare programs or drug running from Mexico/Latin America.

Because the US is so large and has so much territory to cover, much of it protected by local armed force, the crimes such as burglary and such are much less because most Americans don’t live as the prey of criminals. As you get into denser population centers or certain Democrat controlled neighborhoods and slums, it changes. But there is only a limited number of crime that can be committed even there, and even such is limited by the fact that if you rob a store too many times the owner is going to get a shotgun and kill a few of the robbers next time. Which did happen, even in cities like Chicago.

Since gangs are primarily motivated about status, which then gives them money, they are often more interested in fighting amongst themselves for territory and street cred than anything else. Check out the youtube videos that they post glorifying their operations. Drive bys got very popular once they saw that such a thing would get coverage on the news, and the little inferiority obsessed minds of these people love that kind of attention, cause it equals ‘status’.

It is far harder for a gang to expand their territory outside into the greater US, because there are more armed people outside than inside a ghetto. So it is much easier for criminals to focus on each other. More convenient. Less resource intensive.

In Britain, London specifically, you had some crime ridden areas back when the British aristocracy held balls and what not. But that was limited to the Chaucery or whatever they called it. The crims couldn’t get much out, because the rest of the city was frequented by Aristocrats, which could call in the law or their own armed guards.

Britain now, who is there to protect the people from the expansion of criminal networks? Nothing and nobody. People will have to protect themselves. The law is not allowed to protect the people. The police aren’t allowed to do. And the politicians have no interest in the sheep.

Self defence is not illegal in the UK. Attacking or threatening people with a knife when the chances they would have fled once they realised they were being watched possibly is. Tell me, do you think these hardened “attackers” cried to the police about being threatened with a knife? Nope, the kids, when arrested told the police why they ran, because they had been seen AND the woman had a knife.
Chances are these kids would have run off simply when confronted. Oh yea, USA where you are all so safe. Except you are nearly five times more likely to be murdered than us and usually with a gun. What makes me laugh louder that usual is the NRA claims that guns save lives three million times a year in the USA yet STILL you have a murder rate nearly five times higher.

jarhead1982

Mukey-pedo-boi is a proven pathological liar and under felony warrant in the US for paedophile crimes and should not be believed

Mike Breen

I had a thought, jarhead. If I ever find out who you are, how much do you have in order to pay the courts?

jarhead1982

To make sure you’re permanently locked away for your crimes….

Oh wait are you admitting you don’t actually live in the UK, cause either way it don’t really matter as you have nothing to base your accusations upon

Mike Breen

The workings of your fetid mind are truly a wonder to behold….

jarhead1982

It’s only a matter of time till you have nowhere to hide from the govt and your victims, act like a man and take your punishment perve

Mike Breen

And another fetid brain-fart from our resident lunatic.

jarhead1982

You better start watching over your shoulders as your victims find out where you are pedo, bet they will take their time with you when they catch you….

Mike Breen

More wild baseless allegations from our local lunatic. A gun toting lunatic.

And he mimics again, just as I demanded. He makes a fool of himself on demand.

jarhead1982

And he mimics again, just as I demanded. He makes a fool of himself on demand flinging feces like the well trained chimp it is, then he licks his paws….eeeewwwwww

Mike Breen

You just did it again. Monkey see monkey do.

jarhead1982

Baaaah goes the lying Brit pedo

Mike Breen

And you just did it again. In your fetid brain, do you think mimicking is clever?

jarhead1982

And you just did it again liar, in your child raping fetishism and goat syphillis rotted brain, it’s all you can do, we understand. Now squeal wail and fling more feces like the well trained chimp you are, we command you

Mike Breen

You just did it again. My god, you are allowed to own a gun?

jarhead1982

You just did it again, my god, why are you even out in public without a straitjacket on or minders walking you on a leash?

Mike Breen

And you mimicked again! You make a monkey look smart!

jarhead1982

Even primordial ooze and one cell amoebas call you stupid, so whats your point liar?

Bluesman1950

Jaheadcase is the liar posting ridiculous libels to di ert attention from the insanity of his ludicrous and lying assertions.

jarhead1982

Blueballse is another pathological liar posting ridiculous libels to divert attention from the insanity of his ludicrous and lying assertions.

He accuses anybody who disagrees with him of being a murderer, criminal, drug abuser, “proven liar”, “wanted for felony crimes” etc. whilst posting lies and ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

If you were to post evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun, he would accuse you of believing that the Sun orbits the Earth!

I have given up trying to have any form of dialogue with this unbalanced fool.

Bluesman1950

He also copies and pastes your posts since he can’t think of anything intelligent himself.

Monkey see, monkey do!

justiceblueberet1310

What do you expect us to do, stand there and let them attack us? Or give them a hug and give them flowers and a box of chocolates while they’re robbing and beating you or your family to within an inch of your life? You don’t half believe in pink unicorns, don’t you?

Mike Breen

What I expect YOU to do is start shooting each other and claim it’s a great advance on safety in society. Unfortunately, your numbers don’t add up.

jarhead1982

Yeah horrible how in the US an average of 64,000 murders and injuries are prevented by armed resistance to criminals like you and you’re too ignorant to prove otherwise criminal advocate

Sergio Costa

Hey Mike I do hope you get robbed everyday and yes it’s illegal for you to self defend in your home so don’t try to make excuses of how great this law is.

Mike Breen

It’s not illegal at all. If you want to argue a point then fine, but claiming something is illegal when it is not is hardly a great way to score points.

Sergio Costa

Well that just shows you never experienced the said situation but we who have can tell you how it feels no be able to defend yourself at your own house..notice this criminals won’t follow the law so they will be armed with a knife or a pistol and we law abiding citizens have absolutely nothing and only hope not to get stabbed or shot.Think about that,and so you know i have children in the house.
Now that said you can use reasonable force to subdue the criminal but try it against a gun…

Mike Breen

Chances of needing to defend yourself from an armed criminal in the UK is what? And if you could, with a gun, the chances are that more people will get badly hurt. USA kind of proves the point.

jarhead1982

Prove lies but then you are a professional liar

Bluesman1950

“…yes it’s illegal for you to self defend in your home so don’t try to make excuses of how great this law is.”
Another silly American myth about Britain. It is not illegal to defend yourself or your home and family and never has been.

“Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

The force you use must always be reasonable in the circumstances as you believe them to be. Where you are defending yourself or others from intruders in your home, it might still be reasonable in the circumstances for you to use a degree of force that is subsequently considered to be disproportionate, perhaps if you are acting in extreme circumstances in the heat of the moment and don’t have a chance to think about exactly how much force would be necessary to repel the intruder: it might seem reasonable to you at the time but, with hindsight, your actions may seem disproportionate. The law will give you the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances.”

jarhead1982

Anti gunfart position:

English slaves are eunuchs and ballless pacisifists and do not defend themselves therefore the media doeant report these indicdents because they dont exist

Pro-rights position:

We see via media reports tens of thousands of incidents of lawful armed self defense in the US each year, and even the british government claims slef defense occurs several thousand times a year

Quite the conundrum presented by the antigunfarts…

They claim that:

British media is special and different from all the media sources in the world and doesnt report violent crimes or good guy stories of victims defending themselves from the criminals

Self defense is legal when the wording of the law leaves it as discrectionary (May in english defintion does not mandate) even though victims have been prosecuted for doing so

One incident proves their position, kinda like all the british coppers committing violence means all cops are thuggsta criminals or one person prosecuted for defending themselves proves self defense is illegal in practice in the UK…

But when the anti gunfarts are challenged to present all those incidents of self defense where the victim wasnt prosecuted or imprisoned, they refuse to do so…..because the UK is special and different from ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD IN THAT MEDIA DOESNT REPORT VIOLENT CRIMES OR GOOD GUY STORIES AND BRITS ARE BALLLESS GUTLESS WUSSIES TO EFFIMATE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, got it

Mike Breen

You are a coward that needs a gun to feel safe, and you are not free to leave the country. A cowardly slave.

jarhead1982

You are a coward that needs to rape and bully children to feel like a man, but when adults prove you a liar, you go poopy diaper 3rd grader, cowardly slave.

Mike Breen

You just told a pack of lies while accusing others of lying. The fact you accuse others of paedophilia is telling.

jarhead1982

Bleet says the lying Brit pedo

Mike Breen

I’m not a pedo or a liar. You are definitely a liar and probaby a pedo.

jarhead1982

You are a proven pedo and a proven pathological liar

Bluesman1950

“We see via media reports tens of thousands of incidents of lawful armed self defense in the US each year, and even the british government claims slef defense occurs several thousand times a year”
Let’s see your evidence that the British government make any such claim.

“They claim that:
British media is special and different from all the media sources in the world and doesnt report violent crimes or good guy stories of victims defending themselves from the criminals”
No, you are the one claiming that. The point is that Britons very rarely need to use violence to defend themselves or their homes so there is nothing to publish, unlike the USA where people ‘defending’ themselves regularly shoot burglars, children, other family members, unexpected callers etc. etc.

“But when the anti gunfarts are challenged to present all those incidents of self defense where the victim wasnt prosecuted or imprisoned, they refuse to do so..”
Difficult to post a list of people who weren’t prosecuted for not breaking the law! So post all those incidents where victims were prosecuted. You have the same access to UK media online as us!

Just being illiterate doesn’t make you wrong of course. It is the fact that you can show absolutely no evidence to support your rambling fantasies that proves you wrong.

jarhead1982

So you got nothing eh god wannabe, got it…

Bluesman1950

So post all those incidents where victims were prosecuted. You have the same access to UK media online as us!

jarhead1982

So post all those incidents of self defense, oh thats right, all brits are effimate puxxies like you and dont defend themselves and brit media are incompetent and dont post incidents of violent crime and good guy stories like all the other media in the world, got it

Bluesman1950

So that is your excuse as to why you can’t find any evidence?

jarhead1982

We understand, the UK is so special, no one defends themselves, being inherent cowards and puxxies does that…not to mention the media is sooo short yellow bus special in not reporting violent crimes or good guys stories, you know, one of the staples of media reporting these days as everyone knows violence and sex sells….

Better check with the rest of your country’s slaves on just how special you are…..

Thanks for the vigorous debate, guys. Perhaps, though, it’s time to wind it down.

Bluesman1950

The debate might have wound down earlier if it wasn’t full of ridiculous and hysterical nonsense, such as “Britain has successfully turned itself into Anthony Burgess’ Clockwork Orange-vision of a nation equally divided between compliant victims, on the one hand, and brutal psychopaths, on the other.”

That sort of rubbish only encourages the lunatic fringe like Jarhead!

jkingcobra1310

No, just get on your knees and bleat like a sheep and let the criminals burgle you ,rob you, rape you, kill or maim you and if you fight back, you go to jail, simple as, Hellooo, anybody there, SELF DEFENCE IS TOTALLY FKKN ILLEGAL BY BRITISH FKKN LAW, YOU FKKN BRAINLESS BLUEASSED TWAT.

Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.

And Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Subsection (5A) which allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home.

Had you forgotten them or are you just to stupid to understand the numerous explanations you have been given?

Writing this blog is a labor of love. However, if you'd like to donate money for my efforts, please feel free to do so: